The Lester Pearson School Board wants the Quebec government to "give us a little oxygen", by not denying access to English schools, by tightening the "loophole" which had allowed some students to gain eligibility to attend English schools by first atteding an Englisg private school. They argue that this only affects a small number , about 500, students. Law 104 had been passed to close that loophole, but the Supreme Court had ruled last October that the law was uinconstitutional, but had given the Quebec government a year to come with a solution.
The St. Jean Baptiste Societe and other nationalist groups wants the government to, not only close the "loophole", but to make Law 101...Quebec's Language Charter even more restrictive. Even "shower cap"Duceppe, who is presently touring the country to sell his dream of an independent Quebec, has called for the use of the "notwithstanding clause", Sec. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be used to set aside the Supreme Court ruling. Section 23 of the Chater, (Minortity Language Educational Rights) is not affected by the "notwithstanding clause"( only Sec. 2 ...Fundamental Freedoms, Sec.7-14...Legal Rights and Sec. 15...Equality Rights are subject to this clause). Perhaps they can try to argue that Law 104 falls under Sec. 2, but that may be difficult to argue successfully. This however, may not prevent the Quebec government from using the "notwithstsanding" clause and play for time, while it goes through the judicial system. This was the case with the section of Law 101, which took two years to be struck down Sec. 23, established the "Canada clause" over the " Quebec clause" to allow for access to minority language education. It also has an "international clause", but Quebec was excluded from it, (a political concession to Quebec). The Quebec government may have a better chance to "protect" law 104 by using Sec. 1, which grandfathers the Charter. This section establishes that rights are relative, not absolute and therefore can be limited. It states that " these rights exist subject to such limitations, prescrib ed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society ". Quebec has argued before ( in the case of limits on freedom of expression... French only signs), that it is a justfiable limitation, because of the need to protect the French language and culture, but the Supreme Court rejected that arguement. The Bourassa Liberals invoked Sec. 33...the "notwithstsnding clause( this had previously been used once by the Sasketchewan in 1986 to pass back-to-work legislation and by an "unhappy" Rene Levesque and the first Parti Quebecois government...1976-1985, routinely to all Quebec legislation, but it had been discontinued by the next Liberal government...1986, until Bourassa used it in 1988 to bypass the Supreme Court ruling and pass law178.
It is not easy to invoke this clause. Levesque re-acted emotionally after the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. He claimed to have been "screwed", by Trudeau and the Premiers of the other provinces, and he routinely applied the "notwithstanding clause" to all Quebec laws. Bourassa's action was purely political as he was slipping in the polls and wanted to prove that he was as good as anyone in protecting Quebec's "distinct society". Charest is going to retire from active politics, so the political motive is not there but his party is running behind the Parti Quebecois in the polls and he may thus want to play politics and try to protect his party, so that he is not blamed for any loss. The Bloc Quebecois is an anachronism. They have little or no useful purpose and Duceppe, may be too afraid to be seen as ineffective and irrelevant, which he is, and so this is his last desperate effort to inflame the "troops", before he rides off to enjoy his lucrative Canadian pension.
The St. Jean Baptiste Societe and other nationalist groups wants the government to, not only close the "loophole", but to make Law 101...Quebec's Language Charter even more restrictive. Even "shower cap"Duceppe, who is presently touring the country to sell his dream of an independent Quebec, has called for the use of the "notwithstanding clause", Sec. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be used to set aside the Supreme Court ruling. Section 23 of the Chater, (Minortity Language Educational Rights) is not affected by the "notwithstanding clause"( only Sec. 2 ...Fundamental Freedoms, Sec.7-14...Legal Rights and Sec. 15...Equality Rights are subject to this clause). Perhaps they can try to argue that Law 104 falls under Sec. 2, but that may be difficult to argue successfully. This however, may not prevent the Quebec government from using the "notwithstsanding" clause and play for time, while it goes through the judicial system. This was the case with the section of Law 101, which took two years to be struck down Sec. 23, established the "Canada clause" over the " Quebec clause" to allow for access to minority language education. It also has an "international clause", but Quebec was excluded from it, (a political concession to Quebec). The Quebec government may have a better chance to "protect" law 104 by using Sec. 1, which grandfathers the Charter. This section establishes that rights are relative, not absolute and therefore can be limited. It states that " these rights exist subject to such limitations, prescrib ed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society ". Quebec has argued before ( in the case of limits on freedom of expression... French only signs), that it is a justfiable limitation, because of the need to protect the French language and culture, but the Supreme Court rejected that arguement. The Bourassa Liberals invoked Sec. 33...the "notwithstsnding clause( this had previously been used once by the Sasketchewan in 1986 to pass back-to-work legislation and by an "unhappy" Rene Levesque and the first Parti Quebecois government...1976-1985, routinely to all Quebec legislation, but it had been discontinued by the next Liberal government...1986, until Bourassa used it in 1988 to bypass the Supreme Court ruling and pass law178.
It is not easy to invoke this clause. Levesque re-acted emotionally after the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. He claimed to have been "screwed", by Trudeau and the Premiers of the other provinces, and he routinely applied the "notwithstanding clause" to all Quebec laws. Bourassa's action was purely political as he was slipping in the polls and wanted to prove that he was as good as anyone in protecting Quebec's "distinct society". Charest is going to retire from active politics, so the political motive is not there but his party is running behind the Parti Quebecois in the polls and he may thus want to play politics and try to protect his party, so that he is not blamed for any loss. The Bloc Quebecois is an anachronism. They have little or no useful purpose and Duceppe, may be too afraid to be seen as ineffective and irrelevant, which he is, and so this is his last desperate effort to inflame the "troops", before he rides off to enjoy his lucrative Canadian pension.
